[PittleyDunkin]

I have a hard time imagining that youtube is subsidized given the ridiculous number of obnoxious ads you're forced to watch and the steep price of removing them. Surely if they were subsidized this wouldn't be worth the cost of ruining their product.

[WolfeReader]

The steep price of removing them: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...

[PittleyDunkin]

At some point they'll just embed into the video stream. TBH I had assumed they were already doing this.

EDIT: Still, point taken. I'll try to figure out how to install this on my home router—I don't ever watch youtube from my browser.

[luma]

They have, and for that we have SponsorBlock https://sponsor.ajay.app/

[rvnx]

And the irony is that if you pay for YouTube Premium, you still get these baked-in ads :/

[tzs]

What's ironic about it? YouTube premium removes ads that YouTube adds to videos. Those sponsor ads in the videos are put there by the content creator who made the video.

[rvnx]

Yes sorry, perhaps not ironic, disappointing or deceptive would be more appropriate.

YouTube could enforce the content creator to tag the sponsored segments.

[dimator]

There's a different extension to auto skip the (community defined) ad segments in videos. There will always be a way.